MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093442382 · doi:10.1109/secon.2010.5508202

Fair Payments for Outsourced Computations

2010· article· en· W2093442382 on OpenAlexaff
Bogdan Cărbunar, Mahesh Tripunitara

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptography and Data Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemunerationOutsourcingLazinessPaymentComputer scienceCloud computingComputationSet (abstract data type)Computer securityIncentiveBusinessOperating systemMicroeconomicsFinanceWorld Wide WebEconomicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Initiated by volunteer computing efforts, the computation outsourcing problem can become a compelling application for networked set-top-boxes and mobile devices. In this paper we extend such environments with the ability to provide secure payments in exchange for outsourced CPU cycles. Previous contributions in wired networks have almost exclusively tackled only one side of the problem -- offering incentives for volunteer participation and preventing worker laziness. This makes sense in static environments where reputable outsourcers have little to gain from incorrectly rewarding honest participation. However, this assumption is no longer valid in ad hoc environments, where unique identities are difficult to provide and anyone can outsource computations. In this paper we propose a solution that simultaneously ensures correct remuneration for jobs completed on time and prevents worker laziness. Our solution relies on an offline bank to generate and redeem payments; the bank is oblivious to interactions between outsourcers and workers. In particular, the bank is not involved in job computation or verification. Our experiments show that the solution is efficient: the bank can perform hundreds of payment transactions per second and the overheads imposed on outsourcers and workers are negligible.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryptography and Data SecurityFrench-language works237,207